Hollywood Sex Scenes vs. Porn: So What if They’re (Kind of) Different?
* CONTENT ADVISORY: This topic requires a certain level of
frankness that may be inappropriate for some readers. While I have taken great
pains to avoid titillation, reader discretion is still advised. *
Last week, we looked at the four main ways in which motion picture sex scenes and pornography are different.
Now I want to show how these factors actually prove to condemn Hollywood’s
methods rather than excuse them.
Argument #1: There is often a difference in production
values. Motion pictures are a form of art, whereas porn is unabashed
titillation.
Hollywood’s mash-up of blatant
sexuality (nudity and sex scenes) and aesthetics only serves to make its
displays of sex more alluring to the viewer. As works of art,
Hollywood films are concerned with giving their audiences pleasure through
beauty. That’s what aesthetics are all about.
What is ultimately more alluring:
a sex scene with bad lighting, poor audio quality, and shoddy production work,
or a sex scene with good composition, stellar audio, and overall high
production values (drawing you into the scene even further)? Through its use of
aesthetics, Hollywood makes illicit sex more attractive, beautiful, and desirable to a wider audience than porn reaches.
Argument #2: There is often a difference in intent behind
the production of porn and motion pictures. Movies are aesthetic and emotional;
porn is strictly erotic.
A filmmaker’s intent is a legitimate consideration, but its importance is limited—and sometimes nullified—when the filmmaker uses inherently faulty methods. The wrong thing
(using sexually tantalizing footage) for the right reason (communicating a
moral message) is still the wrong thing. In practically every other area of
life, Christians agree that the end doesn’t justify the means. As I’ve pointed out earlier, an immoral method cannot be used to produce a moral message.
Besides, we can’t always take
Hollywood’s declaration of innocent intent at face value. Some filmmakers might say they’re not intending to be tantalizing, but they—like the rest of us—know that sex sells, and sexual material is sometimes inserted into a story to procure a larger audience.
Let me give just one example. In a
particular movie (which I won’t name), there is a scene in which the actress
has to crawl through a pipe. As she does so, the audience can easily see beyond
her sagging neckline. In the DVD commentary during this scene, the director
says, “To teenage boys everywhere: you’re welcome” (or something along those lines).
Yes, some filmmakers know exactly what they are doing when they use sexual imagery in their
movies.
Argument #3: There is often—or, practically always—a
difference in explicitness. Where Hollywood sometimes uses slight of hand, porn
leaves nothing to the imagination.
Porn may indeed be more explicit than
much of Hollywood fare, but what does that prove? Is it excusable for motion
pictures to portray sex scenes and nudity simply because other mediums are more
depraved? The comparison itself is damning.
We should be comparing our movie watching habits to the standards of
Scripture, not to the standards of the lowest common denominator. And yet the
excuse I hear often is, “Well, the scene wasn’t nearly as bad as such and
such.” When did “such and such”—not the Bible—become the default standard for Christian
morality?
I’m reminded of a quote by John White in his book Eros Defiled:
I know that experts used to
distinguish light from heavy petting, and heavy petting from intercourse, but
is there any moral difference between two naked people in bed petting to orgasm
and another two having intercourse? Is the one act a fraction of an ounce less
sinful than the other?
Is it perhaps more righteous to pet with
clothes on? If so, which is worse, to pet with clothes off or to have
intercourse with clothes on?
You may accuse me of being crude. Far from
it. If we pursue the argument far enough we will see that an approach to the
morality of premarital [or extramarital] sex which is based on details of
behavior (kissing, dressing or undressing, touching, holding, looking) and
parts of the body (fingers, hair, arms, breasts, lips, genitalia) can only satisfy a pharisee. A look can be as sensual as a touch, and a finger brushed lightly over the cheek as erotic as penetration. (53)
If porn is inexcusable in its
explicitness (as all—or at least most—Christians would attest), it’s hard to
argue that Hollywood is a marked improvement, much less a champion of chastity.
It would be like arguing that 200° Fahrenheit is colder than 300° Fahrenheit.
While technically true, it’s inconsequential when considering human safety.
Argument #4: There is often a difference in the sex acts
themselves. Films show people acting (i.e., pretending), whereas porn shows
actual intercourse.
Is there that much of a difference between two actors
publicly faking intercourse and two actors publicly engaged in intercourse? Even compared to the blatant obscenity of porn, is it
really morally superior for two actors to kiss, undress, fondle, and gyrate in faux sexual climax—just so long
as the man’s privates stay outside of his co-star?
You may be offended by the
comparison, and indeed you should be. But where does that sense of moral
outrage go when you pay to watch a film in which two (or more) actors sexually act out and/or simulate copulation?
Is pretending to have sex with
your neighbor’s wife for the camera (which is socially acceptable) any better
than just fantasizing about having sex with your neighbor’s wife (which is
Scripturally condemnable)? Do we really want to make those kinds of
distinctions? To paraphrase John White, that smells suspiciously antinomian and
Pharisaic all at the same time.
Sure, there are differences between the porn and motion picture
industries. But at least the porn industry is transparent about its motives and
methods. When it comes to its portrayal of sexual acts, Hollywood’s social acceptability—even among professing
Christians—rests largely on superficial notions of moral superiority.
It’s like a man who can jump three feet condemning another man for
jumping only two feet and ten inches. When the goal is Pluto, the point is
moot. The righteousness of Hollywood’s use of sex and nudity is nothing more
than reality-denying self-righteousness.
Aligning ourselves with that standard is aligning ourselves on the side of
Pharisaic nitpicking.
And we haven’t even yet talked about how porn and motion pictures are similar!
Update: since its original publication, this blog post has been edited to eliminate some needlessly controversial verbiage and to enhance its rhetorical efficacy.
Update: since its original publication, this blog post has been edited to eliminate some needlessly controversial verbiage and to enhance its rhetorical efficacy.